Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the validation categories and the return shape (вердикт, балл, sha256). However, it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements, which are the traits an unannotated tool most needs to declare.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and target, then the check list, then the return values. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be re-explained, and the check list gives useful scope. But the undocumented required parameter and absent usage guidance leave real gaps for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. It is fairly self-evident that path points at a SKILL.md, but no format, base directory, or required file naming is given to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (проверить/lint) and resource (SKILL.md) and enumerates the check categories (structure, triggers, secrets, injections, broken links, autonomy), which clearly separates it from compare_skills and lint_rules. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as lint_rules or compare_skills. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the tool name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.